Obamacare

Now that last week's big health care "summit" has come and gone, it's a good time to take a look at what kind of impact it had on American public opinion about the Democrat's proposed reforms.

Short answer? Still opposed. The latest survey by Rasmussen shows 52% of voters opposed and 44% in favor. And remember, that's AFTER all the fluff coverage it received from the summit.

The more interesting numbers however, (and the ones that the politicians up for reelection this year should pay attention to), are those that demonstrate the passion and intensity people have about the issue. The survey shows 43% of voters being "strongly opposed", with only 22% "strongly in favor".

Not good for Democrats who have voted for it already, much less thinking about using the budget reconciliation process to get around a filibuster and pass it with a simple majority in Congress.

Does anybody really believe that a system ran by the Government would be free of suffering. That a nurse provided by the Government is going to be kinder and provide better comfort than a nurse selected by the one in need of a nurse.

I pray for those in need; My heart also goes out to those who have care provided by the Government and remain tragically more in need. I know that God is aware of every tear. My chest grows tight as I put this post together because I know these people matter to God and to somebody else.

I've been to both DMV and when possible alternative private businesses for services of registering a car. Although not broken by the my experiences with the DMV I can image those people running a hospital but in some cases I don't need to imagine.

An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs. Patients were routinely neglected or left “sobbing and humiliated” by staff.

Should I go on?

The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that “unimaginable” suffering had been caused. Regulators said last year that between 400 and 1,200 more patients than expected may have died at the hospital from 2005 to 2008.

There had been rampant speculation that the White House would narrow
its ambitions for health-care legislation after the loss of the
Democrats' filibuster-proof
Senate majority last month. Instead, the president's proposal is
striking for the extent to which it hews to the basic scale and
framework of the bills on which Congress has toiled for months.

That decision -- to go big one last time, rather than small -- emerged quickly inside the White House after senior advisers to President Obama concluded privately that his goals for comprehensive changes to the health-care system could not be done piecemeal....

Congressional Democrats have not given up on the idea of passing government run health care - despite the overwhelming opposition of the American public.

Senate and House liberals are co-signing a letter urging Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to use the budget reconciliation process to push the so-called "public option" through the Senate. Now that Republicans have the 41 votes necessary to sustain a filibuster, the Democrats want to get around the filibuster all together by using the budget process to pass legislation that would alter 1/6th of the American economy. Which the majority of the American public do NOT want.

Over the course of the past year as the Obama administration and Congress have been busy proposing and debating the creation of new, bigger government programs, the public resistance to bigger and more expensive government has increased, which also translated into more state legislators introducing legislation to have their states opt out of such programs (like ObamaCare).

A recent Rasmussen poll would seem to confirm the resurgence of public support for federalism. The survey found that 59% of voters agree that states should be able to opt out of federal programs that they oppose. (Only 25% disagreed, and 15% didn't know)

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters also think
states should have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs
if the federal government doesn’t help pay for them. Seventeen percent
(17%) say states should not have the right to opt out of federally
mandated programs. ...

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 67% of
voters not affiliated with either major party say states should have
the right to opt out of federal programs with which they don’t agree.
Just 37% of Democrats agree.

Despite numerous polls that clearly demonstrate that the American people don't want the type of health care "reform" that the Democrats have proposed, Obama has indicated (yet again) that he's undeterred and will push forward to try and get it passed.

As for that pesky public opinion, Obama continues to attribute it to a "lack of understanding" on the part of the public. They just need to do a better job of communicating he says. Of course, this is the President who has "communicated" with the American people more than any other President in history at this point in an administration, (with at least 29 high profile speeches dedicated to his health care plans).

At a New Hampshire town hall meeting (yet another in the record number of communication attempts), Obama stated:

“We just have to make sure that we move methodically and that the American
people understand what’s in the bill,” Obama said.

“What I will not do is to stop working on this issue because it is the right
thing to do for America,” Obama said. “You got to let your
members of Congress know they shouldn't give up.”

This story serves as a wonderful example of what conservatives have said about the Democrats favorite notions of how to "fix" health care in America. That being to have the government just take the whole thing over in what is known as a "single payer system"...which means the government pays all the bills.

As conservatives have pointed out, when the government pays all the bills, it eventually moves to control the costs by rationing care. And, with the profit motive gone, advances in medicine and the overall quality of care soon suffer.

During the course of the debate, both sides have held out countries such as Canada and England as representing what was "right" or "wrong" with this approach.

One of the byproducts of the intense debate over ObamaCare and the proposed entre' to a government takeover of about 1/6th of our economy is a renewed interest on the part of state legislators in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

In other words, the scope and power of the federal government is (supposed to be) limited, therefore it can't be construed to extend to allowing Washington DC to mandate that private citizens purchase a specific consumer product. In this case, a health insurance policy. (via the AP)

Although President Barack Obama's push for a health care overhaul has stalled, conservative lawmakers in more than two-thirds of the states are forging ahead with constitutional amendments to ban government health insurance mandates.

As everyone knows by now, Republicans now have 41 seats in the US Senate, which means that they can sustain a filibuster on issues such as ObamaCare, if they stick together. And it's this change in Capitol dynamics that has led Democrats to entertain thoughts of trying to pass ObamaCare by getting around the filibuster rule and use what are known as "reconciliation" rules...which would only require a simple majority for passage.

In order for that to happen however, the Democrat leadership would have to get at least 51 of 59 Democrats go along with the extraordinary measure and, as you can imagine, some of the more "moderate" Democrats are a little skittish about doing anything that blatant - especially since the election results in Massachusetts.

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson has flip-flopped again -- this time saying that he can back the controversial reconciliation process that the Senate may use to railroad the pro-abortion health care bill through the chamber. Nelson first flip-flopped on abortion funding.

Nelson drew the ire of the pro-life movement when he changed his mind on supporting a firm ban on all abortion funding under the bill and compromised with Harry Reid to force some taxpayers to fund abortions. ...

In the wake of last week's Senate upset in Massachusetts, Democrats seemed to be backpedaling away from ObamaCare, but yesterday came word from Nancy Pelosi and other leading House Dems that they plan to keep trying. Their plan is to try and push the Senate's version of health care "reform" through the House (with some changes), and then get the Senate to pass the bill in that chamber with a simple majority vote by using "reconciliation" rules to avoid needing 60 votes to break a Republican filibuster.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said last week she does not
have the votes to pass the Senate bill without changes. Democratic
congressional aides, speaking on condition of anonymity because the
issue is in flux, said the latest strategy involves using a special
budget procedure to revise the Senate bill.

The procedural
route _ known as reconciliation _ would allow a majority of 51 senators
to amend their bill to address some of the major substantive concerns
raised by the House. That would circumvent the need for a 60-vote
majority to hold off Republican delaying tactics.

In other words, they're going to try and "get around" the rules of the Senate, now that Scott Brown's there.